list_subnets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the multi-account scope and the shape of the return (CIDR, AZ, VPC association). It omits pagination or result-size behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the use case and the return contents. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, intended use, and return fields, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (pagination/limits, account scoping details), which are not critical here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents cloud_provider with examples (aws, gce, kubernetes). The description's 'for a given cloud provider' merely restates the parameter without adding format or constraint detail, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List all subnets') plus scope ('for a given cloud provider across Spinnaker accounts'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related list_networks sibling, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a concrete use case: 'discover available subnets when configuring server groups or deployment targets.' That is a clear when-to-use signal, but it names no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., list_networks vs. list_subnets), leaving routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.